From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] x86: spec_ctrl: fix SPEC_CTRL initialization after kexec
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:34:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190923173421.GA13551@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190923153057.GA18195@linux.intel.com>
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 08:30:57AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:22:23PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 20/09/19 23:24, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > We can't assume the SPEC_CTRL msr is zero at boot because it could be
> > > left enabled by a previous kernel booted with
> > > spec_store_bypass_disable=on.
> > >
> > > Without this fix a boot with spec_store_bypass_disable=on followed by
> > > a kexec boot with spec_store_bypass_disable=off would erroneously and
> > > unexpectedly leave bit 2 set in SPEC_CTRL.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> >
> > Can you send this out separately, so that Thomas et al. can pick it up
> > as a bug fix?
As specified in the cover letter 1/17 was already intended to be
merged separately. I just keep this included in case people had the
idea of using kexec to benchmark this work, because I was bitten by
that bug myself and it wasted a few days worth of benchmarks.
> Can all off the patches that are not directly related to the monolithic
> conversion be sent separately? AFAICT, patches 01, 03, 07, 08, 14, 15, 16
> and 17 are not required or dependent on the conversion to a monolithic
> module. That's almost half the series...
03 07 08 are directly related to the monolithic conversion as the
subject of the patch clarifies. In fact I should try to reorder 7/8 in
front to make things more bisectable under all config options.
Per subject of the patch, 14 is also an optimization that while not a
strict requirement, is somewhat related to the monolithic conversion
because in fact it may naturally disappear if I rename the vmx/svm
functions directly.
15 16 17 don't have the monolithic tag in the subject of the patch and
they're obviously unrelated to the monolithic conversion, but when I
did the first research on this idea of dropping kvm.ko a couple of
months ago, things didn't really work well until I got rid of those
few last retpolines too. If felt as if the large retpoline regression
wasn't linear with the number of retpolines executed for each vmexit,
and that it was more linear with the percentage of vmexits that hit on
any number of retpolines. So while they're not part of the monolithic
conversion I assumed they're required to run any meaningful benchmark.
I can drop 15 16 17 from further submits of course, after clarifying
benchmark should be only run on the v1 full set I posted earlier, or
they wouldn't be meaningful.
Thanks,
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-23 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-20 21:24 [PATCH 00/17] KVM monolithic v1 Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 01/17] x86: spec_ctrl: fix SPEC_CTRL initialization after kexec Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 15:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 17:34 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2019-09-23 22:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 02/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: convert the kvm_x86_ops methods to external functions Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 16:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 16:51 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 19:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 03/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: handle the request_immediate_exit variation Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 22:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 23:06 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 23:45 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-24 0:24 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 04/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: convert the kvm_pmu_ops methods to external functions Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 05/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: enable the kvm_x86_ops " Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 06/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: enable the kvm_pmu_ops " Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:24 ` [PATCH 07/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: adjust the section prefixes Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:15 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-25 12:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-25 12:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 08/17] KVM: monolithic: adjust the section prefixes in the KVM common code Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 09/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: remove kvm.ko Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 10/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: use the external functions instead of kvm_x86_ops Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 11/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: remove exports Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 12/17] KVM: monolithic: remove exports from KVM common code Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 13/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: drop the kvm_pmu_ops structure Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 0:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-24 1:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 14/17] KVM: monolithic: x86: inline more exit handlers in vmx.c Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 1:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-24 1:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 1:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-24 2:56 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-25 7:52 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 15/17] KVM: retpolines: x86: eliminate retpoline from vmx.c exit handlers Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 9:31 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2019-09-23 9:57 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 19:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 20:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 21:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 21:24 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 23:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 23:52 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-24 0:16 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 0:35 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-24 0:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 0:15 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-24 0:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-24 0:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-24 21:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-25 7:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 16:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 16:53 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-23 17:42 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 18:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-23 19:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
[not found] ` <E8FE7592-69C3-455E-8D80-A2D73BB2E14C@dinechin.org>
2019-09-25 20:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 16:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 16/17] KVM: retpolines: x86: eliminate retpoline from svm.c " Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 10:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-09-20 21:25 ` [PATCH 17/17] x86: retpolines: eliminate retpoline from msr event handlers Andrea Arcangeli
2019-09-23 15:39 ` [PATCH 00/17] KVM monolithic v1 Sean Christopherson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190923173421.GA13551@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).